-
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2015Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects a variable proportion of the general population, ranging from 3% to 10%. Malassezia yeast species (previously referred to as Pityrosporum)... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects a variable proportion of the general population, ranging from 3% to 10%. Malassezia yeast species (previously referred to as Pityrosporum) are thought to be the responsible organisms, and cause inflammation by still poorly defined mechanisms. Seborrhoeic dermatitis tends to relapse after treatment.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of topical treatments for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the scalp in adults? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to November 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 14 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: bifonazole, ciclopirox, ketoconazole, pyrithione zinc, selenium sulfide, tar shampoo, terbinafine, and topical corticosteroids (betamethasone valerate, clobetasol propionate, clobetasone butyrate, hydrocortisone, mometasone furoate).
Topics: Administration, Topical; Dermatitis, Seborrheic; Humans
PubMed: 26016669
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Dec 2010Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects at least 10% of the population. Malassezia (Pityrosporum) ovale is thought to be the causative organism, and causes inflammation by still... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects at least 10% of the population. Malassezia (Pityrosporum) ovale is thought to be the causative organism, and causes inflammation by still poorly defined mechanisms. Seborrhoeic dermatitis tends to relapse after treatment.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of topical treatments for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the scalp in adults? What are the effects of topical treatments for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the face and body in adults? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 12 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: bifonazole, emollients, ketoconazole, lithium succinate, selenium sulphide, tar shampoo, terbinafine, and topical corticosteroids (betamethasone valerate, clobetasol propionate, clobetasone butyrate, hydrocortisone, mometasone furoate).
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Betamethasone Valerate; Dermatitis, Seborrheic; Emollients; Hair Preparations; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Severity of Illness Index; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 21418692
DOI: No ID Found -
Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine 2016The inflammatory diseases of the nose, rhino-pharynx and paranasal sinuses (allergic and non allergic rhinitis, NARES; rhinosinusitis with/without nasal polyposis,... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
The inflammatory diseases of the nose, rhino-pharynx and paranasal sinuses (allergic and non allergic rhinitis, NARES; rhinosinusitis with/without nasal polyposis, adenoidal hypertrophy with/without middle ear involvement) clinically manifest themselves with symptoms and complications severely affecting quality of life and health care expenditure. Intranasal administration of corticosteroids, being fast, simple, and not requiring cooperation, is the preferred way to treat the patients, to optimize their quality of life, at the same time minimizing the risk of exacerbations and complications. Among the different topical steroids available on the market, we performed a comparative analysis in terms of effectiveness and safety between mometasone furoate (MF) and its main competitors. Searching through Pub Med and Google Scholar and using as entries "mometasone furoate", "rhinitis", "sinusitis", "asthma", "polyposis", "otitis media with effusion", and "adenoid hypertrophy" we found 344 articles, 300 of which met the eligibility criteria. Taking into account relevance and date of publication, a sample of 40 articles was considered for the review. MF effectiveness for treatment and/or prophylaxis of nasal symptoms in seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis has been fully established with a level of evidence Ia. Even though it has not been assessed for MF in particular, topical steroids are the most appropriate treatment in mixed rhinitis and NARES. In acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) evidences support their use as mono-therapy or as adjuvant to antibiotics for reducing the recurrence rate, and decrease the usage of related prescriptions and medical consultations. In chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with Nasal polyposis, MF reduces polyps size, nasal congestion, improves quality of life and sense of smell and it is also effective in the treatment of daytime cough. The topical use of MF has great efficacy in the management of adenoidal hypertrophy and otitis media of atopic children. As regards the safety, MF has demonstrated an excellent safety profile: pregnant women can safely use it; no systemic effects on growth velocity and adrenal suppression have been shown; no changes in epithelial thickness or atrophy have been observed after long term administration of the drug.
CONCLUSIONS
MF has been demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of the inflammatory diseases of the nose and paranasal sinuses; when compared to its competitors it shows a greater symptom control; it is a reliable treatment in the long term thanks not only to its proven efficacy, but also to its safety being on the market since more than 17 years.
PubMed: 27141307
DOI: 10.1186/s40248-016-0054-3 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023No evidence shows that one intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) is better than another for treating moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR). This network meta-analysis... (Review)
Review
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of licensed dose intranasal corticosteroids for moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
No evidence shows that one intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) is better than another for treating moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR). This network meta-analysis assessed the comparative efficacy and acceptability of licensed dose aqueous INCSs. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until 31 March 2022. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing INCSs with placebo or other types of INCSs in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data following the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guideline. A random-effects model was used for data pooling. Continuous outcomes were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD). The primary outcomes were the efficacy in improving total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and treatment acceptability (the study dropout). We included 26 studies, 13 with 5,134 seasonal AR patients and 13 with 4,393 perennial AR patients. Most placebo-controlled studies had a moderate quality of evidence. In seasonal AR, mometasone furoate (MF) was ranked the highest efficacy, followed by fluticasone furoate (FF), ciclesonide (CIC), fluticasone propionate and triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) (SMD -0.47, 95% CI: -0.63 to -0.31; -0.46, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.33; -0.44, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.13; -0.42, 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.17 and -0.41, 95% CI: -0.81 to -0.00), In perennial AR, budesonide was ranked the highest efficacy, followed by FF, TAA, CIC, and MF (SMD -0.43, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.11; -0.36, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.19; -0.32, 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.10; -0.29, 95% CI: -0.48 to -0.11; and -0.28, 95% CI: -0.55 to -0.01). The acceptability of all included INCSs was not inferior to the placebo. According to our indirect comparison, some INCSs have superior efficacy to others with moderate quality of evidence in most placebo-controlled studies for treating moderate-to-severe AR.
PubMed: 37288109
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1184552 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2013Acute sinusitis is a common reason for primary care visits. It causes significant symptoms and often results in time off work and school. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute sinusitis is a common reason for primary care visits. It causes significant symptoms and often results in time off work and school.
OBJECTIVES
We examined whether intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are effective in relieving symptoms of acute sinusitis in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 4, MEDLINE (January 1966 to May week 2, 2013), EMBASE (1990 to May 2013) and bibliographies of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing INCS treatment to placebo or no intervention in adults and children with acute sinusitis. Acute sinusitis was defined by clinical diagnosis and confirmed by radiological evidence or by nasal endoscopy. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with either resolution or improvement of symptoms. Secondary outcomes were any adverse events that required discontinuation of treatment, drop-outs before the end of the study, rates of relapse, complications and return to school or work.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed trial quality and resolved discrepancies by consensus.
MAIN RESULTS
No new trials were found for inclusion in this update. Four studies involving 1943 participants with acute sinusitis met our inclusion criteria. The trials were well-designed and double-blind and studied INCS versus placebo or no intervention for 15 or 21 days. The rates of loss to follow-up were 7%, 11%, 41% and 10%. When we combined the results from the three trials included in the meta-analysis, participants receiving INCS were more likely to experience resolution or improvement in symptoms than those receiving placebo (73% versus 66.4%; risk ratio (RR) 1.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.18). Higher doses of INCS had a stronger effect on improvement of symptoms or complete relief: for mometasone furoate 400 µg versus 200 µg (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.18 versus RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.11). No significant adverse events were reported and there was no significant difference in the drop-out and recurrence rates for the two treatment groups and for groups receiving higher doses of INCS.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is limited for acute sinusitis confirmed by radiology or nasal endoscopy but supports the use of INCS as a monotherapy or as an adjuvant therapy to antibiotics. Clinicians should weigh the modest but clinically important benefits against possible minor adverse events when prescribing therapy.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Intranasal; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Child; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sinusitis
PubMed: 24293353
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005149.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Vitiligo is a chronic skin disorder characterised by patchy loss of skin colour. Some people experience itching before the appearance of a new patch. It affects people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Vitiligo is a chronic skin disorder characterised by patchy loss of skin colour. Some people experience itching before the appearance of a new patch. It affects people of any age or ethnicity, more than half of whom develop it before the age of 20 years. There are two main types: generalised vitiligo, the common symmetrical form, and segmental, affecting only one side of the body. Around 1% of the world's population has vitiligo, a disease causing white patches on the skin. Several treatments are available. Some can restore pigment but none can cure the disease.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of all therapeutic interventions used in the management of vitiligo.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to October 2013: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 10), MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS. We also searched five trials databases, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of treatments for vitiligo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and methodological quality, and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
This update of the 2010 review includes 96 studies, 57 from the previous update and 39 new studies, totalling 4512 participants. Most of the studies, covering a wide range of interventions, had fewer than 50 participants. All of the studies assessed repigmentation, however only five reported on all of our three primary outcomes which were quality of life, > 75% repigmentation and adverse effects. Of our secondary outcomes, six studies measured cessation of spread but none assessed long-term permanence of repigmentation resulting from treatment at two years follow-up.Most of the studies assessed combination therapies which generally reported better results. New interventions include seven new surgical interventions.We analysed the data from 25 studies which assessed our primary outcomes. We used the effect measures risk ratio (RR), and odds ratio (OR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and where N is the number of participants in the study.We were only able to analyse one of nine studies assessing quality of life and this showed no statistically significant improvement between the comparators.Nine analyses from eight studies reported >75% repigmentation. In the following studies the repigmentation was better in the combination therapy group: calcipotriol plus PUVA (psoralen with UVA light) versus PUVA (paired OR 4.25, 95% CI 1.43 to 12.64, one study, N = 27); hydrocortisone-17-butyrate plus excimer laser versus excimer laser alone (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.50, one study, N = 84); oral minipulse of prednisolone (OMP) plus NB-UVB (narrowband UVB) versus OMP alone (RR 7.41, 95% CI 1.03 to 53.26, one study, N = 47); azathioprine with PUVA versus PUVA alone (RR 17.77, 95% CI 1.08 to 291.82, one study, N = 58) and 8-Methoxypsoralen (8-MOP ) plus sunlight versus psoralen (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.91, one study, N = 168). In these three studies ginkgo biloba was better than placebo (RR 4.40, 95% CI 1.08 to 17.95, one study, N = 47); clobetasol propionate was better than PUVAsol (PUVA with sunlight) (RR 4.70, 95% CI 1.14 to 19.39, one study, N = 45); split skin grafts with PUVAsol was better than minipunch grafts with PUVAsol (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.85, one study, N = 64).We performed one meta-analysis of three studies, in which we found a non-significant 60% increase in the proportion of participants achieving >75% repigmentation in favour of NB-UVB compared to PUVA (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.45; I² = 0%).Studies assessing topical preparations, in particular topical corticosteroids, reported most adverse effects. However, in combination studies it was difficult to ascertain which treatment caused these effects. We performed two analyses from a pooled analysis of three studies on adverse effects. Where NB-UVB was compared to PUVA, the NB-UVB group reported less observations of nausea in three studies (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.69; I² = 0% three studies, N = 156) and erythema in two studies (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I² = 0%, two studies, N = 106), but not itching in two studies (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.60; I² = 0%, two studies, N = 106).Very few studies only assessed children or included segmental vitiligo. We found one study of psychological interventions but we could not include the outcomes in our statistical analyses. We found no studies evaluating micropigmentation, depigmentation, or cosmetic camouflage.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review has found some evidence from individual studies to support existing therapies for vitiligo, but the usefulness of the findings is limited by the different designs and outcome measurements and lack of quality of life measures. There is a need for follow-up studies to assess permanence of repigmentation as well as high- quality randomised trials using standardised measures and which also address quality of life.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Ginkgo biloba; Humans; Lasers, Excimer; PUVA Therapy; Photosensitizing Agents; Phototherapy; Plant Extracts; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin Pigmentation; Skin Transplantation; Steroids; Vitiligo
PubMed: 25710794
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003263.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2014Until recently, phimosis has been treated surgically by circumcision or prepuceplasty; however, recent reports of non-invasive treatment using topical corticosteroids... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Until recently, phimosis has been treated surgically by circumcision or prepuceplasty; however, recent reports of non-invasive treatment using topical corticosteroids applied for four to eight weeks have been favourable. The efficacy and safety of topical corticosteroids for treating phimosis in boys has not been previously systematically reviewed.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to 1) compare the effectiveness of the use of topical corticosteroid ointment applied to the distal stenotic portion of the prepuce in the resolution of phimosis in boys compared with the use of placebo or no treatment, and 2) determine the rate of partial resolution (improvement) of phimosis, rate of re-stenosis after initial resolution or improvement of phimosis, and the rate of adverse events of topical corticosteroid treatment in boys with phimosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Date of last search: 16 June 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared use of any topical corticosteroid ointment with placebo ointment or no treatment for boys with phimosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed titles, abstracts and the full-text of eligible studies, extracted data relating to the review's primary and secondary outcomes, and assessed studies' risk of bias. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We contacted authors of primary articles asking for details of study design and specific outcome data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 studies that enrolled 1395 boys in this review. We found that both types of corticosteroids investigated and treatment duration varied among studies.Compared with placebo, corticosteroids significantly increased complete or partial clinical resolution of phimosis (12 studies, 1395 participants: RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.84 to 3.26). Our analysis of studies that compared different types of corticosteroids found that these therapies also significantly increased complete clinical resolution of phimosis (8 studies, 858 participants: RR 3.42, 95% CI 2.08 to 5.62). Although nine studies (978 participants) reported that assessment of adverse effects were planned in the study design, these outcomes were not reported.Overall, we found that inadequate reporting made assessing risk of bias challenging in many of the included studies.Selection bias, performance and detection bias was unclear in the majority of the included studies: two studies had adequate sequence generation, none reported allocation concealment; two studies had adequate blinding of participants and personnel and one had high risk of bias; one study blinded outcome assessors. Attrition bias was low in 8/12 studies and reporting bias was unclear in 11 studies and high in one study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Topical corticosteroids offer an effective alternative for treating phimosis in boys. Although sub optimal reporting among the included studies meant that the size of the effect remains uncertain, corticosteroids appear to be a safe, less invasive first-line treatment option before undertaking surgery to correct phimosis in boys.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Beclomethasone; Betamethasone; Clobetasol; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Male; Mometasone Furoate; Ointments; Phimosis; Pregnadienediols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triamcinolone
PubMed: 25180668
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008973.pub2 -
EClinicalMedicine Apr 2023Acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) commonly develops in cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy and is often characterized by erythema, desquamation, and pain. A... (Review)
Review
Acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) commonly develops in cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy and is often characterized by erythema, desquamation, and pain. A systematic review was conducted to summarize the current evidence on interventions for the prevention and management of ARD. Databases were searched from 1946 to September 2020 to identify all original studies that evaluated an intervention for the prevention or management of ARD, with an updated search conducted in January 2023. A total of 235 original studies were included in this review, including 149 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Most interventions could not be recommended due to a low quality of evidence, lack of supporting evidence, or conflicting findings across multiple trials. Photobiomodulation therapy, Mepitel® film, mometasone furoate, betamethasone, olive oil, and oral enzyme mixtures showed promising results across multiple RCTs. Recommendations could not be made solely based on the published evidence due to limited high-quality evidence. As such, Delphi consensus recommendations will be reported in a separate publication.
PubMed: 37181415
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101886 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016Vilanterol (VI) is a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) that binds to the beta-adrenoceptor on the airway smooth muscle, producing bronchodilation. LABA therapy, which is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Vilanterol (VI) is a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) that binds to the beta-adrenoceptor on the airway smooth muscle, producing bronchodilation. LABA therapy, which is well established in adults as part of the British Thoracic Society (BTS) Guidelines for the Management of Asthma, leads to improvement in symptoms and lung function and reduction in exacerbations. At present, the commonly used LABAs licensed for use in asthma management (formoterol and salmeterol) require twice-daily administration, whereas VI is a once-daily therapy.Fluticasone furoate (FF) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), and ICS therapy is recommended by the BTS asthma guidelines. ICSs, the mainstay of asthma treatment, lead to a reduction in both airway inflammation and airway hyper-responsiveness. Regular use leads to improvement in symptoms and lung function. ICSs are currently recommended as 'preventer' therapy for patients who use a 'reliever' medication (e.g. short-acting beta agonist (SABA), salbutamol) three or more times per week. Most of the commonly used ICS treatments are twice-daily medications, although two once-daily products are currently licensed (ciclesonide and mometasone).At the present time, only one once-daily ICS/LABA combination (FF/VI) is available, and several other combination inhalers are recommended for twice-daily administration.
OBJECTIVES
To compare effects of VI and FF in combination versus placebo, or versus other ICSs and/or LABAs, on acute exacerbations and on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adults and children with chronic asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials, clinical trial registries, manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included studies up to June 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults and children with a diagnosis of asthma. Included studies compared VI and FF combined versus placebo, or versus other ICSs and/or LABAs. Our primary outcomes were health-related quality of life, severe asthma exacerbation, as defined by hospital admissions or treatment with a course of oral corticosteroids, and serious adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a fixed-effect model. We used standard Cochrane methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 6641 randomised participants, of whom 5638 completed the study. All studies lasted between two and 78 weeks and showed good methodological quality overall.We included 10 comparisons in this review, seven for which the dose of VI and FF was 100/25 mcg (VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs placebo; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs same dose of FF; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs same dose of VI; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs fluticasone propionate (FP) 500 mcg twice-daily; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) 250/50 mcg twice-daily; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs FP/SAL 250/25 mcg twice-daily; FF/VI 100/25 vs FP/SAL500/50) and three for which the dose of VI and FF was 200/25 mcg (VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs placebo; VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs FP 500 mcg; VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs same dose of FF).We found very few opportunities to combine results from the 14 included studies in meta-analyses. We tabulated the data for our pre-specified primary outcomes. In particular, we found insufficient information to assess whether once-daily VI/FF was better or worse than twice-daily FP/SAL in terms of efficacy or safety.Only one of the 14 studies looked at health-related quality of life when comparing VI and FF 100/25 mcg versus placebo and identified a significant advantage of VI/FF 100/25 mcg (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.46; 329 participants); we recognised this as moderate-quality evidence. Only two studies compared VI/FF 100/25 mcg versus placebo with respect to exacerbations; both studies reported no exacerbations in either treatment arm. Five studies (VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs placebo) sought information on serious adverse events; all five studies reported no serious adverse events in the VI/FF 100/25 mcg or placebo arms. We found no comparison relevant to our primary outcomes for VI/FF at a higher dose (200/25 mcg) versus placebo.The small number of studies contributing to each comparison precludes the opportunity to draw robust conclusions for clinical practice. These studies were not of sufficient duration to allow conclusions about long-term side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Some evidence suggests clear advantages for VI/FF, in combination, compared with placebo, particularly for forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV) and peak expiratory flow; however, the variety of questions addressed in the included studies did not allow review authors to draw firm conclusions. Information was insufficient for assessment of whether once-daily VI/FF was better or worse than twice-daily FP/SAL in terms of efficacy or safety. It is clear that more research is required to reduce the uncertainties that surround interpretation of these studies. It will be necessary for these findings to be replicated in other work before more robust conclusions are revealed. Only five of the 13 included studies provided data on health-related quality of life, and only six recorded asthma exacerbations. Only one study focused on paediatric patients, so no conclusions can be drawn for the paediatric population. More research is needed, particularly in the primary outcome areas selected for this review, so that we can draw firmer conclusions in the next update of this review.
PubMed: 27582089
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010758.pub2 -
PloS One 2023The life quality of about two-thirds of patients with COVID-19 is affected by related olfactory dysfunctions. The negative impact of olfactory dysfunction ranged from...
Effect of any form of steroids in comparison with that of other medications on the duration of olfactory dysfunction in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review of randomized trials and quasi-experimental studies.
BACKGROUND
The life quality of about two-thirds of patients with COVID-19 is affected by related olfactory dysfunctions. The negative impact of olfactory dysfunction ranged from the decreased pleasure of eating to impaired quality of life. This research aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the effects of corticosteroid treatments by comparing that to other currently available treatments and interventions.
METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist's 27-point checklist was used to conduct this review. PubMed (Public/Publisher MEDLINE), PubMed Central and EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database) databases were conveniently selected and Boolean search commands were used for a comprehensive literature search. Five core search terms were "effects of treatments", " COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction", "corticosteroids", "treatments" and "interventions". The reporting qualities of the included studies were appraised using JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) appraisal tools. The characteristics of the 21 experimental studies with a total sample (of 130,550) were aggregated using frequencies and percentages and presented descriptively. The main interventions and their effects on the duration of the COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction were narratively analyzed.
RESULTS
Among patients with COVID-19, the normal functions of the olfactory lobe were about 23 days earlier to gain with the treatments of fluticasone and triamcinolone acetonide nasal spray compared with that of mometasone furoate nasal spray and oral corticosteroid. The smell loss duration was reduced by fluticasone and triamcinolone acetonide nasal spray 9 days earlier than the inflawell syrup and 16 days earlier than the lavender syrup. The nasal spray of corticosteroids ended the COVID-19-related smell loss symptoms 2 days earlier than the zinc supplementation, about 47 days earlier than carbamazepine treatment and was more effective than palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) and luteolin and omega-3 supplementations and olfactory training. Treatment with oral corticosteroid plus olfactory training significantly improved Threshold, Discrimination and Identification (TDI) scores compared with olfactory training alone. A full dose of the COVID-19 vaccination was not uncertain to reduce the COVID-19-related smell loss duration.
CONCLUSION
Corticosteroid treatment is effective in reducing the duration of COVID-19-related smell loss and olfactory training, the basic, essential and effective intervention, should be used as a combination therapy.
Topics: Humans; Nasal Sprays; Anosmia; Quality of Life; Triamcinolone Acetonide; COVID-19; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Steroids; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Fluticasone
PubMed: 37531338
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288285